Don’t lead a weary nation into another war

Published: Friday, September 6, 2013 at 08:00 AM.

One would think we would have learned lessons in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. One would be wrong. Same old song, just a new verse.

The U.S. is war weary, and with good reason. While the situation in Syria is horrifying, there are always various civil wars occurring around the world. If we look back we can easily find others just as brutal, but we did not intervene: Mozambique, Uganda, Liberia I and II, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Congo I and II, Ivory Coast, Chad, Darfur … and let’s not forget Somalia and Mali.

There’s plenty of room on the hypocrisy train. All aboard.

In light of last Saturday’s announcement, Obama’s folks are either brilliant strategists or the luckiest bumblers ever, but there’s still time for the war profiteers to write some big checks.

The U.S. supports anyone who plays ball. If they don’t play ball, we work against them, have them ousted and replaced with someone who will. It used to be done entirely in the shadows, but now we use extensive propaganda campaigns. Our problem in Syria appears to be not having anyone in line to replace Assad, but the hawks are restless.

Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, but it was ignored until it became politically expedient for the Bush administration. With the emotional backdrop of 9/11, they sold us a war in Iraq based on their belief that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program. When that didn’t pan out, oh well, he gassed his own people after all.

Regardless of who gassed whom, Syria is not our fight, and with Russia backing Assad, and China backing Russia, what do we think we are going to accomplish? Lobbing some cruise missiles into Syria will not defeat the Assad regime. Saying “so long” to Assad is a goal, but not the objective. I’m confused.

One would think we would have learned lessons in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. One would be wrong. Same old song, just a new verse.

The U.S. is war weary, and with good reason. While the situation in Syria is horrifying, there are always various civil wars occurring around the world. If we look back we can easily find others just as brutal, but we did not intervene: Mozambique, Uganda, Liberia I and II, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Congo I and II, Ivory Coast, Chad, Darfur … and let’s not forget Somalia and Mali.

There’s plenty of room on the hypocrisy train. All aboard.

In light of last Saturday’s announcement, Obama’s folks are either brilliant strategists or the luckiest bumblers ever, but there’s still time for the war profiteers to write some big checks.

The U.S. supports anyone who plays ball. If they don’t play ball, we work against them, have them ousted and replaced with someone who will. It used to be done entirely in the shadows, but now we use extensive propaganda campaigns. Our problem in Syria appears to be not having anyone in line to replace Assad, but the hawks are restless.

Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, but it was ignored until it became politically expedient for the Bush administration. With the emotional backdrop of 9/11, they sold us a war in Iraq based on their belief that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program. When that didn’t pan out, oh well, he gassed his own people after all.

Regardless of who gassed whom, Syria is not our fight, and with Russia backing Assad, and China backing Russia, what do we think we are going to accomplish? Lobbing some cruise missiles into Syria will not defeat the Assad regime. Saying “so long” to Assad is a goal, but not the objective. I’m confused.

The Obama administration has sat on the sidelines of the Syrian civil war for two years. John McCain goes on a stealth mission to meet with the “rebels” and the next thing we know Obama is talking about supplying the rebels with small arms and he decides to stop moving the red line. I have been doing some research on where the notion of a “red line” originated and traced it back to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I’m still not sure of the first instance of it use, or who prompted the response, but it appears the President has been bobbing and weaving ever since. He got painted into a corner and, personally, I do not believe the risks are worth allowing him to save face.

Issuing a “red line” was ill-advised and now demands a response. I’m not even sure how the prospect of chemical weapons was concocted. Did someone have a crystal ball? I keep seeing the replay of the president’s remarks, but I never see them prefaced with a direct question. Did he walk into a trap, or is he a willing participant? In light of the Snowden affair, I wonder how much more willing the Obama administration is to antagonize the Russians. I wonder if he’ll hold a beer summit in St. Petersburg with Putin. In the final analysis, do we not need to ask how many more people will die if we escalate the violence?

You may say chemical warfare cannot be tolerated, but why is it our role to selectively choose which atrocities can and cannot be tolerated? If it is because we are the “beacon of freedom and hope” to all the world, I would suggest we get our moral house in order before preaching to everyone else, and get our financial house in order before trying to do anything about it.

If you agree, now would be the time to share your views with your elected representatives. Citizenship requires participation.

STEVE HOUGH
Southport

● ● ●

It is time for our representatives in Congress to rise above politics and support President Obama’s decision to attack Syria whether they like him or not. He is the president of our country and its representative to the entire world. The U.S. is a champion of democracy, freedom and humanity and cannot ignore the use of chemical weapons by the dictator President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to butcher hundreds of people, including children.

The world stood silent over 70 years ago watching Hitler commit atrocities against Jews and other people until he started World War II. Thank God that Hitler did not get nuclear bombs ahead of America, otherwise we would have seen a different world today.

The U.S. cannot ignore its interests in the Middle East and its allies there. A slap to the president’s face will be a punch to U.S. prestige in the world and a great loss to American interests.